Site Errata
I'm planning on a condensed version of the canon policies, since the treatises currently in use are, well, treatises. In other words, they're huge, since of course there's a lot of ground to cover when you've got to deal with folks who argue every little thing to support their pet views.
(Speaking of which, a small group of Star Wars EU-philes who loathe this author and his analysis of the Star Wars canon are seeking an old thread from TrekBBS. TrekBBS renders older posts invisible to guest/free users, and so I have the relevant posts archived right here.
It's long been linked to from the Trek canon page, though of course they don't read the canon pages. In any case, indications are that they feel it can be used in support of a personal attack, heavy in spin . . . undoubtedly almost as heavy as the mental gymnastics required for their beliefs on various canon policies.
In any case, dear reader, don't be fooled by the ever-present vitriol of the Talifan EU Completists, who will no doubt have me villified into a baby-eating neo-Nazi Al-Qaeda member. While their claims are based on personal attacks, mine are based on the extensive quotations and references which I provide you so you can see for yourself.
posted by Author @ 10:18
26 Comments:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
"Indeed, confusing as it might seem, the books were canon and "quasi-canon" simultaneously, depending on where you directed the question..."
I don't know how you can reach that conclusion, considering the rather clear statement that Paula Block made right there in one of the archived posts:
"Canon is what's produced for the TV and Movie screens. Books aren't. End of story."
Block is not the end-all be-all, though, and the buck does not stop with her. She is not 'the decider' on canon beyond her role (at the time) as liaison to Pocket Books for Viacom Consumer Products.
Block reported that Pocket Books authors were wanting to use Jeri's stuff as background material and, after talking to someone at Rick Berman's office, Block gave the okay for Pocket Books folks to do that. Then later she and Pocket Books just sort of dropped it, based on their own views of whether it was needed anymore.
That is entirely different than Exec Producer Jeri Taylor saying her books were canon, with no one contradicting that by any statement and with the official site still listing the books as canon.
By analogy, imagine if the Vice President said it is our plan to nuke the country of Fartknockerstan in 2007. Now imagine if a general, not aware of the VP's comments, drew up plans to nuke Fartknockerstan based on suggestions from his staff and officers below him. But then the general and his staff, deciding amongst themselves that Fartknockerstan is no longer a valid target, drop the plans. Does that invalidate the VP's statement, which has not been contradicted by the President or VP or anyone else, and is still current in government press releases? Especially when the general isn't in charge of nuclear policy or even the nukes themselves?
Of course not.
The Pocket Books folks in the archived thread had the same sort of trouble you're having, in that they did not comprehend that my analysis is based on rank of the speaker. One would've thought this was clear on my page and made clear again in my defense against their vitriol, but oh well.
...and with the official site still listing the books as canon.
You don't care about what StarWars.com says about the Star Wars canon, so why do you care so much about what was said on a single page on the Official Star Trek site, a page which several people told you was "outdated" and "run by a division of a company which is a licensee"? That's highly inconsistent considering how you treat LFL (which is a far more integrated company than Paramount/CBC) and the information over at StarWars.com. How do you explain that?
Block reported that Pocket Books authors were wanting to use Jeri's stuff as background material and, after talking to someone at Rick Berman's office, Block gave the okay for Pocket Books folks to do that.
Block says outright that the "writers on the show [Voyager]" didn't care about Ryan's novels after she left and that they then "stopped being even quasi-canon". That's very clear.
"Block is not the end-all be-all, though, and the buck does not stop with her."
Then who, pray tell, does it stop with?
"...That is entirely different than Exec Producer Jeri Taylor saying her books were canon, with no one contradicting that by any statement and with the official site still listing the books as canon."
Bock contradicted that in the very same post that I had quoted, saying that the HAD been considered "quasi-canon", only for the benefit of the television writers. And just because the official website says something, doesn't make it correct. (Executor length, anyone?)
For Verbose Anon:
You don't care about what StarWars.com says about the Star Wars canon
Untrue. If the StarWars.com site had anything specific a la what StarTrek.com has I'd be on it. However, to my knowledge the only thing on StarWars.com is in the main page of the EU section, saying there's more to the story or something similar. Certainly nothing to base a claim on.
a [StarTrek.com] page which several people told you was "outdated" and "run by a division of a company which is a licensee"
Yes, several people said such things. And I responded in the archived thread which you evidently did not read all the way through. Block herself confirmed that PDE was not a licensee, and I gave several pieces of evidence to confirm the fact that the page itself was not outdated, and had in fact been recently revised.
In short, your first paragraph is a gross misrepresentation.
...to be continued
Untrue. If the StarWars.com site had anything specific a la what StarTrek.com has I'd be on it
You were told by the VIPs on the Official forum that your ideas of the Star Wars canon and the structure of LFL are wrong. I don't see how it could be more specific than that. It's hardly a secret that the canon is maintained by LFL. Also, the Official Site does indeed refer to the EU in several sections. As for the Official Star Trek site, check out the official forums and the canon discussions going on there. No ambiguites there: only what is seen on screen is canon. The fans knows it, the writers knows it and the Executive Director of Publishing knows it, so why don't you acknowledge that you're wrong instead of arguing with people against whom you can't win the argument?
Yes, several people said such things. And I responded in the archived thread which you evidently did not read all the way through.Block herself confirmed that PDE was not a licensee, and I gave several pieces of evidence to confirm the fact that the page itself was not outdated, and had in fact been recently revised.
But you have no say in what's canon or not! It isn't you, me or any other fan who decides on such things and it doesn't matter what sort of "evidence" you think you're presenting. It's Paramount who decides on that. And don't bring Berman into this. He has never made a statement on the canoncity of the two novels (if he has, bring it forward or concede) and as you were told in no uncertain terms, books "are below their [Berman's and Braga's] radar".
As for the FAQ itself, it was last revised more than three years ago and we don't know who entered that information. However, we do know from your investigation that the information is erroneous.
A question if I may: Why are the two novels so important?
In short, your first paragraph is a gross misrepresentation.
It's not I who misrepresents things here, buddy.
"And now, the continuation"...
Block says outright that the "writers on the show [Voyager]" didn't care about Ryan's novels after she left and that they then "stopped being even quasi-canon". That's very clear.
"While Jeri Taylor was actively involved with Star Trek, we allowed the licensees to treat her two books as quasi-canon for their projects (because the folks at Voyager weren't likely to contradict them in their episodes)."
Here, Taylor tells us that VCP (elsewhere noted as having consulted with some unspecified person in Berman's office) allowed licensees to treat Taylor's novels as quasi-canon. (And again I note that this is separate from Taylor's novel self-canonization.)
"And that worked pretty well for a while. After she left Voyager, however, the other writers on the show pretty much did what they wanted (I doubt they ever read her books), so the books eventually stopped being even quasi-canon."
Here, Taylor tells us that at VCP, it was believed that Taylor's material was ignored after her departure. Of course, given that references to it still occurred, this is not really true.
We know from Ron Moore and others how utterly fractured the Voyager writing team was around the beginning of the fifth season due to Braga's mismanagement. That's different than Block's perception that they abandoned Taylor and hadn't even read her work, though it ends with a similar result of different writers pretty much doing what they wanted.
The point here is that you probably could make a backstage-based argument that the references to Taylor's novels were / would have been inconsistently applied at best. But Voyager's internal continuity regarding past episodes of the show itself was also pretty lax after Taylor's departure, and that does not invalidate the canonicity of earlier episodes of Voyager. So why should we treat the canonicity of the books differently?
Your answer is that we should do so on the grounds of what the folks at licensing did, but as they themselves have made clear they were unaware of Taylor's canonization of the work, and unaware of StarTrek.com's current statements on the matter. So for the purposes of determining what is true canon, I don't see how their internal quasi-canonization and de-quasi-canonization are of much significance, except in the case of pointing them out as sources of potential confusion.
Traveller:
"You were told by the VIPs on the Official forum that your ideas of the Star Wars canon and the structure of LFL are wrong. I don't see how it could be more specific than that. It's hardly a secret that the canon is maintained by LFL."
You're presumably referring to Leland Chee of Lucas Licensing attempting to contradict Lucas's statement from Starlog. Lucas's statement is here:
http://www.canonwars.com/weblog/2005/09/ecce-starlog.html
It was partially quoted in this post on the StarWars.com forums by "mike4ty4":
"George Lucas said in the Starlog magazine recently that the books, games, etc. are a "different world" than his films, and that "we decided that we would have two universes", with one being his films and the other being everything else. Does this mean that George Lucas (and presumably others, as evidenced by his use of "we" deciding...) does not consider the EU canonical?"
Chee responded:
"GL is certainly not bound by the EU, though he's certainly open to using things created in it (Aayla Secura and the Coruscant name, for example). On the other hand, the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films."
Now, once Chee was given the full quote from the magazine a few posts later, he stopped responding altogether. It is interesting to note that he acknowledged the way the quote sounded ("makes it sound like") based on mike4ty4's paraphrase and quoting, yet tried to disagree. One wonders if he still disagreed after the full quote was given to him or not. Rostoni certainly seemed to agree with similar statements in the past, as noted in the thread. However, if we assume that Chee continues to disagree with Lucas's statement, then we're still stuck with the same basic idea:
To Chee of Licensing, the Star Wars EU isn't separate because Lucas isn't bound by it, and indeed the fact that he can use bits of it if he chooses and that he maintains some 'control' by answering Licensing questions means that it really is Star Wars.
The problem is that his position is invalid, because we've seen Lucas's statement and it trumps whatever Chee might wish to say. And further, the evidence Chee uses for it being the same universe is also invalidated, since Lucas could write the EU himself, but if he calls it a different universe then it is, end-of-story.
You can try to claim that Chee said I was wrong, but what you're really doing is trying to set Chee above Lucas, and you just can't do that.
It isn't you, me or any other fan who decides on such things and it doesn't matter what sort of "evidence" you think you're presenting. It's Paramount who decides on that.
Yes, and that's precisely what I always point out. The problem is . . . if you'll forgive my phrasing here . . . I get folks like you who don't want to listen to what the top dogs say, and if you're lucky you find some uninformed little dog to latch on to and hold up as the highest standard.
Indeed, you're doing that twice here . . .
1. With the Trek canon, you dismiss Taylor and the current Paramount position elucidated at StarTrek.com's pages and instead hold up as the authority someone at licensing who didn't know the whole story regarding Taylor's novels.
2. With the Star Wars canon, you dismiss Lucas and Rostoni and instead hold up as the authority someone at licensing who didn't know the whole story regarding Lucas's statements or those of Rostoni which concurred.
And so I'm stuck with the unenviable task of trying to undo the confusion that exists because of bogus claims.
And don't bring Berman into this. He has never made a statement on the canoncity of the two novels (if he has, bring it forward or concede)
I don't know what you're talking about here. When did I ever 'bring him into this'? I have nothing to concede.
As for the FAQ itself, it was last revised more than three years ago and we don't know who entered that information. However, we do know from your investigation that the information is erroneous.
It was last revised in mid-to-late 2004, and we know from my investigation that it is perfectly accurate.
A question if I may: Why are the two novels so important?
Because they're canon.
You will undoubtedly continue to argue, since it's clear that you're one of the ST-v-SW.Net opponents and hence quite loyal with your opposition. But your current track of reasoning displayed here isn't going to sway me, because it is invalid by the rank-based, logic-based scheme I employ.
The problem, then, is that you are left with only a few options. You can try semantic gymnastics, or you can argue against the rank-based scheme altogether and try to justify your use of Block and Chee as the true arbiters of canon. But both forms of desperation are doomed to fail, so you're really quite stuck. Sorry.
I have no intention to argue. Just a few things:
Here, Taylor tells us that VCP (elsewhere noted as having consulted with some unspecified person in Berman's office) allowed licensees to treat Taylor's novels as quasi-canon. (And again I note that this is separate from Taylor's novel self-canonization.)
"Self-canonization", from where do you get that? In any case, I won't delve deeper into this, but answer this (on second thought, I'll even give you the answers):
1. Was Taylor even in a position to make such a declaration (of canon)? If she wanted the writers of the show to follow her novels, she could've said so. However, the writers didn't care about the novels after she left and as the only canon is what is seen on screen, that's a moot point.
2. Did Taylor own the rights to Star Trek? No, she did not.
3. Does "canon" mean what you say it does? No, it's a fan thing (and virtually every Star Trek fan, writer etc. disagrees with your definition of canon. Did you venture to the Official Star Trek forums). Also, it was the actions of the licensing department in the first place which gave them the status of "quasi-canon" in the first place.
But your current track of reasoning displayed here isn't going to sway me, because it is invalid by the rank-based, logic-based scheme I employ
What does it matter what sort of scheme you have on your site as it has no impact on the official canon policy? You can sit here and declare "Mosaic", "Pathways" or the "Star Trek Alien Coloring Book" canon, but again, what does that matter as that won't change the canon policy and no-one in an official position cares about it? I guess that your interpretation of the canon wouldn't last very long in discussion on the StarTrek.com forums.
Thank you for your time.
Taylor doesn't own the rights to Trek, but the Trek site says the books contain canon info, even if you ignore any self-canonizing statements.
And there is fan view of canon and then, there's the franchise view of canon, when said franchise actually cares about some attempt at keeping things straight. But, if canon is a fan thing, it wouldn't matter what the liscensing department says, it wouldn't matter what P. Block says or anyone else on the trek.com boards.
Traveller:
"Self-canonization", from where do you get that?
http://www.canonwars.com/STCanonquotes2.html#1996-JeriTaylor-MosaicCanon
However, the writers didn't care about the novels after she left
Honestly, I find this claim quite peculiar for three reasons.
We know that all live-action Trek is canon. StarTrek.com says so, production staffers have said so, et cetera. But there are tons of episodes, films, et cetera that aren't mentioned again, and many that have some little element end up contradicted (or seemingly so). By your argument they are non-canon on that basis, which of course is absurd. In other words, you're applying a different rule set to the stated-to-be-canon novels than you use for the stated-to-be-canon shows, when in fact the same should be employed.
Second, we know that references to the novels are made up to the end of season four, which marks Taylor's move from overseeing the writing staff to creative consultant. (That alone puts the novels in a higher standing than many episodes, by your criteria.) And there are minor references after, though I don't seem to have the list I once made. (I'll try to reconstruct it, but I don't think it's necessary for my point.)
Third . . . where is it ever stated that the writers didn't care about the novels after her departure? People just sort of assume that based on Voyager's continuity gaffes, but again by that reasoning they didn't care about a lot of earlier episodes.
2. Did Taylor own the rights to Star Trek? No, she did not.
So? Rick Berman was put in charge of Trek by its owners. Berman put Taylor as the showrunner of the flagship Trek show of Paramount's own network. If you think this doesn't give her plenty of valid authority over Trek and Voyager, then we're speaking entirely different languages here.
3. Does "canon" mean what you say it does? No, it's a fan thing
Say what? Even if we were to entertain your notion just for kicks, StarTrek.com quashes it by defining the term for us in this context.
(and virtually every Star Trek fan, writer etc. disagrees with your definition of canon.
Really? Virtually every Trek fan? Wow, that's quite impressive. Praytell, how did you come to that ridiculous conclusion?
As for writers, the only writers known to disagree regarding canon are a bloc of non-canon novel writers at TrekBBS, who by necessity as writers for a Trek licensee follow the dictates handed down by CBS's licensing folks (VCP at the time of the linked discussion). As you could undoubtedly discern by reading the linked discussion, I wasn't greatly concerned by that, and I didn't need to be. Higher authorities disagreed with them.
You still act as if you're astonished that I would reject their opinions, but I really don't get your reaction. So they've written licensed tie-in stories . . . so what? That gives them great stature among geeks, to be sure, but that doesn't make them gods of Trek. They aren't the decision-makers on canon, and neither is Paula Block (except for those self-same licensee writers). Berman was a decision-maker. Taylor was a decison-maker. That's where the power is.
Also, it was the actions of the licensing department in the first place which gave them the status of "quasi-canon" in the first place.
. . . which, again, is separate from and unequal to the canonization by Taylor.
What does it matter what sort of scheme you have on your site as it has no impact on the official canon policy?
Hey wait, how can there be an official canon policy if canon's just a fan thing as you said just a few sentences ago? Be consistent, please.
But of course, the point you're trying to make is that my analysis is somehow disconnected from what you view to be reality, i.e. that use of a rank-based analysis somehow invalidates the analysis because . . . er . . . whatever. I can't really claim to understand your objection, since you don't give any particular reason.
All I can say in answer to your vague objection is that on the one hand, the issue of two of Taylor's several Trek novels being canon is rather moot since Voyager, along with everything else from the 24th Century. After all, the next show was a prequel and the next movie is due to be TOS-era.
But on the other hand, the owners and makers have passed judgement on what is or is not Star Trek "fact". So if one wants to discuss or analyze Trek, one needs this objective standard to start from. Otherwise, one is being subjective and, per the owners and makers, either isn't discussing Trek at all, or isn't discussing it in its entirety.
"Self-canonization", from where do you get that?
http://www.canonwars.com/STCanonquotes2.html#1996-JeriTaylor-MosaicCanon
Funny, I don't see her saying that "these novels are canon" or otherwise declaring them canon.
However, the writers didn't care about the novels after she left
Honestly, I find this claim quite peculiar for three reasons.
We know that all live-action Trek is canon. StarTrek.com says so, production staffers have said so, et cetera. But there are tons of episodes, films, et cetera that aren't mentioned again, and many that have some little element end up contradicted (or seemingly so). By your argument they are non-canon on that basis, which of course is absurd. In other words, you're applying a different rule set to the stated-to-be-canon novels than you use for the stated-to-be-canon shows, when in fact the same should be employed.
No, I don't. The only thing I'm saying is that the two novels aren't canon: It's not more complicated than that.
Second, we know that references to the novels are made up to the end of season four, which marks Taylor's move from overseeing the writing staff to creative consultant. (That alone puts the novels in a higher standing than many episodes, by your criteria.) And there are minor references after, though I don't seem to have the list I once made. (I'll try to reconstruct it, but I don't think it's necessary for my point.)
Again, I don't know what damn criteria of mine you're referring to. What we see on screen is canon, the novels and the other books aren't.
Third . . . where is it ever stated that the writers didn't care about the novels after her departure? People just sort of assume that based on Voyager's continuity gaffes, but again by that reasoning they didn't care about a lot of earlier episodes.
Oh gee, could it be because people who are in a position to know spelled it out for you and the fact that the novels indeed were contradicted on several points?
2. Did Taylor own the rights to Star Trek? No, she did not.
So? Rick Berman was put in charge of Trek by its owners. Berman put Taylor as the showrunner of the flagship Trek show of Paramount's own network. If you think this doesn't give her plenty of valid authority over Trek and Voyager, then we're speaking entirely different languages here.
Remember what I told you? "And don't bring Berman into this." I understood that you'd try that sooner or later. Furthermore, my point is still valid: Taylor never owned or otherwise had any rights to Star Trek.
3. Does "canon" mean what you say it does? No, it's a fan thing
Say what? Even if we were to entertain your notion just for kicks, StarTrek.com quashes it by defining the term for us in this context.
Oh yes, the holy StarTrek.com which you revere higher than the people who are in the position to know.
(and virtually every Star Trek fan, writer etc. disagrees with your definition of canon.
Really? Virtually every Trek fan? Wow, that's quite impressive. Praytell, how did you come to that ridiculous conclusion?
Excuse me, it was perhaps a poor choice of words. How about the fans who care? As I told you, I have yet to see anyone lay out the canon the same way you do, and there a few threads concerning the canon policy over at the StarTrek.com forums and in those threads, no-one echoes your take on the canon, but only the official canon policy (or they refer to their own personal canon). Why's that? The only ones I've seen ascribe to your own personal interpretation of the canon is you and a tiny number of VS debaters.
As for writers, the only writers known to disagree regarding canon are a bloc of non-canon novel writers at TrekBBS,
You know what? That's nothing but a bunch of crap. It's time to get back to reality, buddy. These people are in it for a living. They know more than you do how their work is regarded. Oh, and for "non-canon novel writers" at least one of the authors (David Mack) told you in that thread that he had written episodes for Deep Space 9 and thus contributed to the canon. I noticed that his post doesn't show up on your page. An oversight? Excuse me if I'm not convinced.
who by necessity as writers for a Trek licensee follow the dictates handed down by CBS's licensing folks (VCP at the time of the linked discussion). As you could undoubtedly discern by reading the linked discussion, I wasn't greatly concerned by that, and I didn't need to be. Higher authorities disagreed with them.
A "higher authority" who left and who never owned any rights to the franchise, riiiight. No, it doesn't work that way (and you were told that).
You still act as if you're astonished that I would reject their opinions, but I really don't get your reaction. So they've written licensed tie-in stories . . . so what? That gives them great stature among geeks, to be sure, but that doesn't make them gods of Trek. They aren't the decision-makers on canon, and neither is Paula Block (except for those self-same licensee writers). Berman was a decision-maker. Taylor was a decison-maker. That's where the power is.
I haven't said they were. What I say is that they are in a position to know a great deal more than you do about their work. And for Paula Block, she works for the company which holds the right to Star Trek. You know, the same way that Chee et. al works for the company which holds the rights to Star Wars and which has a different approach to canon than the people responsible for Star Trek have. You're also ignoring Paula Block's experience and knowledge about this particular issue:
"I started working at Paramount while Gene Roddenberry was still alive, so you might say I got canon from the horse's- er, Great Bird's—mouth. Canon is what's produced for the TV and Movie screens. Books aren't. End of story.
End of story indeed.
Also, it was the actions of the licensing department in the first place which gave them the status of "quasi-canon" in the first place.
. . . which, again, is separate from and unequal to the canonization by Taylor.
We've already been over this.
What does it matter what sort of scheme you have on your site as it has no impact on the official canon policy?
Hey wait, how can there be an official canon policy if canon's just a fan thing as you said just a few sentences ago? Be consistent, please.
Yes, it is primarily a fan thing. Canon is, as Paula Block said, what's seen on-screen only. And as she said: "It's just a word, guys. It's not the ten commandments. All it means is that we try not to let people contradict the stuff that was on-screen, but we don't care if all the fiction authors contradict each other's books. Sigh."
As I said earlier, that's quite a different approach to canon than Lucasfilm (which has its own continuity editors and other staff) and it's nothing which is considered important (in fact, it doesn't seem to be considered at all by Paramount/Viacom).
And you didn't answer: What does it matter what sort of scheme you have on your site as it has no bearing at all (remember that you have no authority whatsoever to tell anyone what's canon or not) and doesn't reflect the actual canon policy?
But of course, the point you're trying to make is that my analysis is somehow disconnected from what you view to be reality, i.e. that use of a rank-based analysis somehow invalidates the analysis because . . . er . . . whatever. I can't really claim to understand your objection, since you don't give any particular reason.
I have given all the reasons.
All I can say in answer to your vague objection is that on the one hand, the issue of two of Taylor's several Trek novels being canon is rather moot since Voyager, along with everything else from the 24th Century. After all, the next show was a prequel and the next movie is due to be TOS-era.
Why are you pushing the issue then?
But on the other hand, the owners and makers have passed judgement on what is or is not Star Trek "fact". So if one wants to discuss or analyze Trek, one needs this objective standard to start from. Otherwise, one is being subjective and, per the owners and makers, either isn't discussing Trek at all, or isn't discussing it in its entirety.
Quite true. There's only the fact that you're forgetting that you are trying to push your own subjective views on Star Trek canon as truth. This isn't rocket science: What's seen on-screen is canon, books aren't.
Funny, I don't see her saying that "these novels are canon" or otherwise declaring them canon.
The thing with "http" in front is what we call a link on the internet. Copy it to your address bar and the quote I linked to will appear. Then you'll see Jeri Taylor responding to a question about whether Mosaic will be canon (the question being asked before the book was released). Taylor answers in the affirmative, and notes that she's indulged her right to treat it as such already in episodes under production.
Re: My request for proof that the writers didn't care about Taylor's novels during her tenure as creative consultant:
Oh gee, could it be because people who are in a position to know spelled it out for you
Who might that be? Surely you don't refer to Trek novel authors or someone working for another company altogether who wasn't involved in the production of canon whatsoever?
and the fact that the novels indeed were contradicted on several points?
Here you go again with your silly criteria. Entire Voyager episodes were also contradicted on several points by other Voyager episodes, not to mention Voyager contradicting other Treks. Hell, the USS Al-Batani mentioned in "Caretaker" is believed by some to have been re-rendered as the USS Icarus in Mosaic ... if true that means that a novel which the exec producer of Voyager stated to be canon was in the august company of much of the rest of the series by contradicting some of what came before. (Personally I don't view it as a contradiction, but I bring it up to point out the fact that your criteria is invalid.)
Remember what I told you? "And don't bring Berman into this." I understood that you'd try that sooner or later.
I so much as mention his name and you flip out? He was the keeper of the franchise. As for my use of the name as a tangential fragment of my point, I haven't brought Berman into anything, but I reject your asinine suggestion that I am not allowed to do so.
Furthermore, my point is still valid: Taylor never owned or otherwise had any rights to Star Trek.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you here attempting to reject the statements of anyone on the production staff? That is what you appear to be doing, but before I allow myself to be profoundly astonished I wanted to doublecheck.
Of course, if you do that then we're left with the statements of the owners. They've been kind enough to provide some at StarTrek.com, so I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here.
I have yet to see anyone lay out the canon the same way you do
Most people aren't as thorough. Bernd Schneider and Graham Kennedy come closest and may exceed my thoroughness in some respects, though. Given the history of my canon pages (wherein the nice and short original versions were relentlessly attacked by those with an agenda in a way that Bernd and Graham don't have to worry about), I've had to make them as thorough as possible.
Re: The TrekBBS bloc of writers
These people are in it for a living. They know more than you do how their work is regarded.
Who's talking about their work? It's non-canon, so it's irrelevant.
Oh, and for "non-canon novel writers" at least one of the authors (David Mack) told you in that thread that he had written episodes for Deep Space 9 and thus contributed to the canon.
David Mack and John Ordover teamed up and pitched stories to DS9 back when it was open season for anyone to do so. Since you obviously haven't troubled yourself to read the Trek canon page, I'll quote the relevant section for you:
Third, the stories he pitched and got the writing credit for were quite different than the aired episodes, as often happened. Credits, after all, do not always imply what they seem to imply. As related in the DS9 Companion, the story Ordover and Mack pitched for "Starship Down" (and received writing credit for) was of the damaged Defiant sinking in an alien sea, with Odo sinking down after them to rescue the crew before the water crushed the ship. Of course, the real "Starship Down" involved a battle in the depths of a gas giant. The core story of the crew trapped in small groups is what remained, though those events were also modified. As for "...Paper Moon" which Ordover pitched, Ordover's version (based loosely on Casablanca) was a multi-thread tale to be set entirely in Quark's Bar, the only establishment open during a Bajoran holiday . . . hardly the same as the tale of a shell-shocked Nog recovering from emotional wounds by immersing himself in the Vic Fontaine holoprogram. Weird differences like this are just the way that TV credits work, a fact about which anti-Trek debaters are unaware.
Finally, there was no "You Must Know the Canon Policy!" pre-requisite for pitching a story. Obviously, Ordover couldn't have pitched a sequel to one of the novels he had edited (for legal reasons if nothing else), but beyond that it was as much "open season" for him as it would've been for anyone. And that's anyone, literally. In March 1994, according to the Writer's Guild of America Journal, DS9 and TNG were the only two series which accepted pitches from writers without agents . . . Michael Piller had started that during TNG's third season. Some of the best stories of both series resulted from such pitches, with the natural "tweaking" by the production staff. The trick was simply pitching something that the producers would actually like and buy. (It's actually a rather sad thing that such pitching was later disallowed, since even the best writing team only has a finite number of ideas. George Lucas, one of the most successful filmmakers of the century, ran out of "superweapon" ideas after only one movie.)
In short, the inherent problem behind the use of Ordover is one which is common to Vs. Debaters. The identity of the person is ignored in favor of what they say (or can be said to have said). Thus, matters of rank utterly escape attention, enabling any passing Joe to have a say. That's just not how it works. As Tim Gaskill of StarTrek.com reportedly put it, "John Ordover doesn't work on the show and isn't employed by Paramount directly. He is employed by Pocket Books, one of Paramount's biggest licensees. Sure, John has some say, but the buck does not stop with him."
I noticed that his post doesn't show up on your page. An oversight? Excuse me if I'm not convinced.
Yes, you're absolutely correct in your attempt to imply in a weaselly fashion that I'm trying to hide pertinent information. After all, since I've just quoted a whole section dedicated to the idea, then obviously I've been trying to suppress the information for years. You got me good.
(Sorry, hope I didn't get any sarcasm on you. It was dripping, after all.)
And for Paula Block, she works for the company which holds the right to Star Trek.
No, she doesn't. She works for the company which is tasked with handling the licensing duties for CBS Corp. (then Viacom) properties. Her closest claim to fame inasmuch as being near the decision-makers was when she discussed canon with Roddenberry once. I'm sure she also dealt with Richard Arnold, who was Roddenberry's personal liaison to licensees and personally oversaw licensed materials for Roddenberry. And she was in touch with some staffmember at Berman's office during the whole Taylor quasi-canonicity decision that the licensees had bugged her about getting.
So no, I don't bow and scrape to Paula Block's opinion on the matter. It counts, but only as far as her rank allows. And as specified, she was unaware of Taylor's canonization of her own works, so again you can't claim that these people are omniscient experts just because they work for a subsidiary company. That's just not how the world works.
End of story indeed.
You quote Block's report of Roddenberry's statements on what canon was and call it the end of the story? Roddenberry died in October of 1991, meaning this statement came no less than five years before Taylor's Mosaic.
And you didn't answer: What does it matter what sort of scheme you have on your site as it has no bearing at all (remember that you have no authority whatsoever to tell anyone what's canon or not) and doesn't reflect the actual canon policy?
Don't give me that crap. I answered perfectly by pointing out (a) that you're being inconsistent about the existence of an official canon policy and (b) your claim that my analysis doesn't reflect the actual canon policy is utterly baseless. Try reading my last message if you want more detail.
Why are you pushing the issue then?
It is a matter of fact, one which folks like you reject out-of-hand. I find that both amusing and annoying, and so I'll keep plugging away at the point until you make up your mind to accept the facts, or else somehow come up with a valid counterargument that is actually based on the facts. But I don't see the latter happening given your trouble with such things so far.
After all, you claim that I'm the one trying to push a subjective interpretation of canon. And yet you say this while also refusing to back up your claims, refusing to stand by your claims based on subjective criteria, and so on. The best example is your nonsense about the writers rejecting Taylor's novels during her time as creative consultant (based on the statement of Block, who wasn't on the writing staff), using that as a reason to claim that the novels aren't canon, then refusing to stand by that statement when I challenged you ("No I don't" ... "what damn criteria"). And yet you continued to use it seconds later.
Of course, attempting to apply a standard of contradiction is subjective on your part. Star Wars fans such as yourself have made a cottage industry of coming up with ridiculous ret-cons of obvious contradictions, rejecting any suggestions of the contradictions' validity, so contradictions are hardly an objective standard. The only objective standard we have is the statements of those who are qualified to make such statements.
That's Jeri Taylor and CBS Corp., and they've made it more than clear.
Improve, concede, or be ignored. I'll waste no more time on retreading the same ground ... as analogy, just because you don't believe the Earth orbits the sun doesn't mean I have to prove it to you. Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
Except of course nowhere does Jeri Taylor state that her novels ARE canon merely that she expects them to be held as such. Since other ST series didn't deal with Voyager crew and she was executive producer of Voyager she could make writers not contradict her novels. But her novels were NEVER declared canon.
And after she left the production she lost any say over what is and isn't canon. Paula Block (as well as several novel and TV series writers), who is still any employee of Paramount and therefore is in a position to speak for Paramount and canon issue, clearly stated that no books are canon. This is all very simple and your huge article won't change that.
Paula Block still is not in a position to say what is canon for the show. Taylor was actually working on the show.
Except of course nowhere does Jeri Taylor state that her novels ARE canon merely that she expects them to be held as such.
And we have no reason to believe she changed her mind on the matter, especially given how she was making the show consistent with the novels. As she said, it was something she could do as executive producer and she was indulging it.
And after she left the production she lost any say over what is and isn't canon.
So? Does that mean that what she said before suddenly evaporated? No, it does not.
[Paula Block is an] employee of Paramount and therefore is in a position to speak for Paramount and canon issue
She's not an employee of Paramount, and never was. She was an employee of Viacom's licensing company (the Viacom that owned Paramount), not Paramount.
Now she's an employee of CBS Consumer Products (The CBS Corp. licensing company), a subsidiary of CBS Enterprises (which, back in the Viacom days, was a program distribution company including syndication and such). CBS Enterprises is a subsidiary of CBS Corp. Star Trek TV is handled by another CBS Corp. subsidiary, CBS Paramount Television. (Viacom, not CBS Corp., still holds Paramount Pictures, which is where the JJ Abrams stuff is going to be made.)
This is all very simple and your huge article won't change that.
My huge article is very simple and well-referenced. You clearly have not read it, though, given your lack of knowledge about the Paramount thing, so your ignorance on the matter is somewhat understandable. Though I'd much rather you read my work before attempting to contradict it. In any case, your refusal to accept the clear conclusion is not my concern.
Paula Block still is not in a position to say what is canon for the show. Taylor was actually working on the show.
Did I say that? She said that NO BOOKS are canon which is EXACTLY what she is hired to do.
And we have no reason to believe she changed her mind on the matter, especially given how she was making the show consistent with the novels. As she said, it was something she could do as executive producer and she was indulging it.
Do what as a producer? Oh that's right: PRETEND that her books are canon and force the writers not contradict her books WHILE she was working there. Once again I will point out that Taylor never said her books are canon.
So? Does that mean that what she said before suddenly evaporated? No, it does not.
Yes it does. Her books are never canon but she was merely in a position to make Voyager writers not contradict her novels. She had no such power after she left. This was an internal matter between the producer and writers and not an official policy.
She's not an employee of Paramount, and never was. She was an employee of Viacom's licensing company (the Viacom that owned Paramount), not Paramount.
And this nitpick changes what? She works for a company that handles Star Trek license which is owned by Viacom. She is in charge of book licensing and she is saying the books aren't canon. How much simpler can this be?
Now she's an employee of CBS Consumer Products (The CBS Corp. licensing company), a subsidiary of CBS Enterprises (which, back in the Viacom days, was a program distribution company including syndication and such). CBS Enterprises is a subsidiary of CBS Corp. Star Trek TV is handled by another CBS Corp. subsidiary, CBS Paramount Television. (Viacom, not CBS Corp., still holds Paramount Pictures, which is where the JJ Abrams stuff is going to be made.)
And the point of all this is? The fact remains that TV license is held by CBS corporation (your attempts to obfuscate the matter by listing various subsidiaries, which are in the end owned and controlled by CBS corporation, notwithstanding) and Paula Block is still in charge of book licensing thus her authority to speak on CBS's behalf on whether books are or aren't canon is unchallenged.
My huge article is very simple and well-referenced. You clearly have not read it, though, given your lack of knowledge about the Paramount thing, so your ignorance on the matter is somewhat understandable. Though I'd much rather you read my work before attempting to contradict it. In any case, your refusal to accept the clear conclusion is not my concern.
Maybe I should just quote David Mack Star Trek TV series writer:
"Canon is what's live-action on screen. That and nothing else. Period. This is simple. This is cut and dried. There is no ambiguity here. Let go of your rambling diatribes and face the truth: Star Trek books aren't canon."
It seems that no one can accept your "very simple" and "well-referenced" article. Not even the people who create the very "canon" you claim to know so much about.
Ah, the fun of the old StarDestroyer.Net folks. Once one of them has tried to get you to retread the same ground, another will appear to demand the same retread with more hostility and use of CAPSLOCK.
Anonymous, you *did* try to claim that Paula Block has say over what's canon regarding the shows. Even now you're listening to Paula Block over all others.
What's canon for Trek is canon for Trek, period. You people love trying to reject the statements of those in charge for some reason. You reject Lucas's statements about Star Wars in favor of folks from the publishing department of his licensing company, and you're applying the same standard to Trek. That's just the usual gamesmanship on your part . . . rejecting the statements of those in charge in favor of the statements of lesser-ranked people that can be claimed to support you. And in support of this, you try to muddy the waters of who those people are and what they do . . . Paula Block is suddenly a Paramount employee in a position to make statements about what is or isn't canon, and David Mack is suddenly a staff writer on Trek. Neither of *your obfuscations* are accurate.
Paula Block is a minor functionary in a licensing company ... she is not a decision-maker about Trek canon nor was she in the know regarding what went on within the Trek productions. She knew nothing of Taylor's statements or self-canonization . . . the only canonization Block knew of was the faux one she concocted because the authors wanted it. She checked with people in Berman's office . . . no doubt a holdover from the days when Roddenberry had Richard Arnold overseeing licensed materials with an iron fist.
David Mack got writing credit on a story idea he and Ordover pitched that got thoroughly reworked by the real Trek writing staff . . . another story that was even more reworked got story credit. But anyone could pitch back in the good ole days, and you didn't have to know anything about canon to do so.
By your own admission, Jeri Taylor treated her novels as canon during her time as showrunner. And while you try to pretend that Jeri Taylor never declared her books canon, we have a clear quote from right before the publication of Mosaic that she expected it to be held as such and was already treating it that way. You have no evidence that she suddenly reversed course . . . you're simply trying to employ the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantium: "Oh, we don't have a quote showing that she believed that after they were published, so therefore she didn't!"
So, here's the challenge for you and all your pals:
1. Prove that Jeri Taylor, Brannon Braga, or Rick Berman decanonized Taylor's novels while they were involved in the Trek productions. You'll need a statement to that effect, preferably specific to the two novels but specifically rejecting all books will suffice. I already have a Berman quote that fails to do what you need it to do on my site.
2. Cease and desist in your use of logical fallacies. You went for the argument from ignorance . . . your friend earlier went for personal incredulity.
3. Accept the fact that just as a Paramount janitor would have no significant statements to make, so too is it true that we must accept the real ranks of people involved in the production or ownership of Trek. Quit trying to make people out to be more than they are ("Oh, he's not a janitor, he's a Paramount employee in charge of handling early-version scripts!"), and quit trying to put licensing companies over the parent companies and their production companies.
4. Read the damn page before trying to argue with it. I know it's long, but it's long there so I don't have to be long here. I've been kind enough so far not to respond with "RTFW" (read the frakking webpage), but my patience with folks like you who don't have honest questions is really thin.
There's more, but at least that would be a start.
What's canon for Trek is canon for Trek, period. You people love trying to reject the statements of those in charge for some reason. You reject Lucas's statements about Star Wars in favor of folks from the publishing department of his licensing company, and you're applying the same standard to Trek.
You are lying as usual. Lucas clearly stated several times that Extended Universe is a part of "The Saga". His "different world" quote clearly refers to licensing and not a literal world as the second part of his quote proves. His own statement in ROTS DVD commentary about how Anakin's scar will be explained in the EU proves beyond any doubt that EU is indeed a part of SW saga.
And yes what's canon for Trek is canon for Trek and as you have been told that is filmed shows and only the filmed shows.
And in support of this, you try to muddy the waters of who those people are and what they do . . . Paula Block is suddenly a Paramount employee in a position to make statements about what is or isn't canon, and David Mack is suddenly a staff writer on Trek. Neither of *your obfuscations* are accurate.
Since she deals with Star Trek licensing then yes she is obviously in a position to say what is and isn't Star Trek canon. Just who do you think has the authority to say what is canon? You realize that Taylor was just another employee of Viacom and didn't own the license?
Paula Block is a minor functionary in a licensing company ... she is not a decision-maker about Trek canon nor was she in the know regarding what went on within the Trek productions. She knew nothing of Taylor's statements or self-canonization . . . the only canonization Block knew of was the faux one she concocted because the authors wanted it. She checked with people in Berman's office . . . no doubt a holdover from the days when Roddenberry had Richard Arnold overseeing licensed materials with an iron fist.
Ah I see a person that deals with Star Trek licensing "wasn't in the know" about what is canon for the very show she was in charge with. And you know this how? And you know that "writers wanted it" how? Which writers, TV or novel?
David Mack got writing credit on a story idea he and Ordover pitched that got thoroughly reworked by the real Trek writing staff . . . another story that was even more reworked got story credit. But anyone could pitch back in the good ole days, and you didn't have to know anything about canon to do so.
And you know that it got thoroughly reworked by the "real" Trek staff how? And this undermines his word how?
By your own admission, Jeri Taylor treated her novels as canon during her time as showrunner. And while you try to pretend that Jeri Taylor never declared her books canon, we have a clear quote from right before the publication of Mosaic that she expected it to be held as such and was already treating it that way. You have no evidence that she suddenly reversed course . . . you're simply trying to employ the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantium: "Oh, we don't have a quote showing that she believed that after they were published, so therefore she didn't!"
Nice strawman. I never claimed I know what she did or didn't believe. What she believes is irrelevant: the point is her books were never declared canon.
1. Prove that Jeri Taylor, Brannon Braga, or Rick Berman decanonized Taylor's novels while they were involved in the Trek productions. You'll need a statement to that effect, preferably specific to the two novels but specifically rejecting all books will suffice. I already have a Berman quote that fails to do what you need it to do on my site.
The books were never canon in the first place. No "decanonization" is necessary. Secondly Berman is merely an employee of Viacom and not owner of Star Trek license. Which means that if Viacom (or now CBS) officials decide that something is canon or not canon Berman has to accept it just like everyone else. Since Paula Block is hired to maintain the books licensing then she is the highest authority on whether the books are canon short of corporate officials. Berman currently isn't producing any new Star Trek series which means that his current say over Star Trek is zero.
2. Cease and desist in your use of logical fallacies. You went for the argument from ignorance . . . your friend earlier went for personal incredulity.
You are lying. I repeated clear cut statements by Paula Block that declare ALL books not canon.
3. Accept the fact that just as a Paramount janitor would have no significant statements to make, so too is it true that we must accept the real ranks of people involved in the production or ownership of Trek. Quit trying to make people out to be more than they are ("Oh, he's not a janitor, he's a Paramount employee in charge of handling early-version scripts!"), and quit trying to put licensing companies over the parent companies and their production companies.
But where are those quote from higher ranking members? The only quote you provided is from Taylor who never actually said that her books are canon. Block's statement is the only clear cut we have.
4. Read the damn page before trying to argue with it. I know it's long, but it's long there so I don't have to be long here. I've been kind enough so far not to respond with "RTFW" (read the frakking webpage), but my patience with folks like you who don't have honest questions is really thin.
Why should I read your page? I actually did read a large part of it but really when we have clear cut statements from people with authority who needs you?
You are lying as usual.
Oh? Speak for yourself:
Lucas clearly stated several times that Extended Universe is a part of "The Saga".
You're lying: there is one and only one quote in which Lucas uses the term "saga" in such a way as to make it possible for you to claim that it is inclusive of the EU. That is the Splinter preface: http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#1994-SplinterPreface .
In addition to your numeric lie, there is the lie of omission . . . there have been other uses of "saga" by Lucas, and they have invariably excluded the EU:
1. "the saga itself, the story of the Skywalker family, is over"
Entertainment Weekly '04 -- http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2004-Lucas-SagaOver
2. " And one is a live action series about minor characters in the saga" ... " I just reserved the theatrical arena for this saga which, as I say, started out as a two-hour idea and turned into 12 hours of story."
BBC May 2005 -- http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2005-Lucas-EUlifeofitsown
3. "I was able to complete the entire saga and say this is what the whole story is about."
CNN May 2005 -- http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2005-CNNsagacomplete
4. "It's not about Darth Vader or the saga, it just takes place in that world. It's like the spin-off novels. I'm not doing it, other people are doing it."
Empire June 2005 -- http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2005-Lucas-EmpireMag
5. "But George says that the story he has to tell will be complete in the six films, which can then be viewed as one epic saga."
(via Sansweet) -- http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2000-AskJC-Ep789
It's also entertaining to note the usage of "saga" by your preferred sources in Licensing's publishing department. For instance, Rostoni: "Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays" ... "The books, comics, etc., are a ”legitimate continuation” of the Star Wars saga as we define it", et cetera.
I realize you have some deep and abiding need for the EU to be real Star Wars (or just real altogether), but it just isn't. You can claim I'm lying all you like, but as I just demonstrated once again, I have the facts backing me up. All you have is ... well, your lies.
His "different world" quote clearly refers to licensing and not a literal world as the second part of his quote proves.
Here you go again. You refer to http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2002-Cinescape , and seek to use the use of the term "intrude", confuse it, and then override the rest of the quote with it. I've been over all that before so I'm not going to retread the same ground, except to say that, in your mind, the maneuver allows you to dismiss the rest of the quote. But, it appears that you forgot November 2001's TV Guide (http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2001-TVGuide) and of course the infamous Starlog (http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonquotes2.html#2005-Lucas-Starlog). You can't "intrude" your fingers into your ears and ignore everything.
More to come ...
There has been a recent change to trek.com's page. It now reads:
"In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule: the Jeri Taylor- penned books "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters and were to be considered as references by writers on the show. Now that the show is over, some of those events may never be incorporated into a live action format, so the question of whether details from these novels remain canon is open to interpretation."
1) The current format still backs up the idea of Taylor and the book canonizing at the time she made her statement.
2) Saying that it is open to interpretation as to whether they are still canon because the show is over doesn't undo what Taylor said before. Saying it's open to interpretation is vague and says nothing of how those on the film/TV end of Trek feel about the books.
So, if it's open to interpretation, how do those that are/were in charge of TV/film production feel about the books now?
SDN is already sinking its teeth into this.
GStone
Paula Block still is not in a position to say what is canon for the show. Taylor was actually working on the show.
Block, as well as the writers and other persons, is in a far better position to know the workings of the canon than you or the Talifan DSG2k.
Paula Block is a minor functionary in a licensing company ... she is not a decision-maker about Trek canon nor was she in the know regarding what went on within the Trek productions. She knew nothing of Taylor's statements or self-canonization . . .
The 'self-canonization' BS is your idea and your idea only. You shouldn't be too surprised that people, who actually works at the company, are unaware of that idea of yours. As you were told by one of the writers: Your site is a work of fiction .
Thanks GStone!
http://www.canonwars.com/weblog/2006/11/startrekcom-faq-update.html
Block, as well as the writers and other persons, is in a far better position to know the workings of the canon than you or the Talifan DSG2k.
This has never been an issue. What has has been Block et all in relation to those determining canon for the trek of the films and TV shows.
The 'self-canonization' BS is your idea and your idea only.
As I have shown, the webmaster of trek.com, after speaking with an SDnetter, changed the canon page, showing that it isn't just Darkstar's idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home